conclusion, the immediate prospect before us, now that the coal strike is supposed to be over. The men have got what they struck for, a minimum wage--they have got it at the cost of indescribable suffering to hardworking fathers and devoted mothers and innocent little children; of a loss of thirty millions to the country-and of the shattered nerves of Mr. Asquith. To gain an end justifiable in itself, they have waged a fratricidal war against a nation and have cowed its Government into submission. It is a colossal scandal that a single industry should have had power to do this thing. History may well inquire whether a nation in which it could happen was sane whether it was ruled by fools or cowards. And what is to prevent a recurrence of this state of things in the future? Certainly the Minimum Wage Act 15 will not prevent it. As certainly we cannot look to the Government for legislation to prevent it. The suggested Royal Commission is simply a device for the King's Ministers to avoid responsibility, and to save time for going on with their congenial occupation, majority mongering. There is absolutely no necessity for a Royal Commission on the subject. Remedies which might be quite effective are plainly discernible. If anything is perfectly clear it is that this huge strike is largely due to the legislation which has put trade unions above the law. And the first step to remedy the mischief is, as clearly, to undo that legislation. To render the funds of a trade union liable for any damage done by or through it, for breach of any agreement entered into by it and ratified by the Board of Trade, utterly to prohibit picketing, to require that the accounts of trade unions shall be audited by public officials and published, and to enact that every member of a union should have votes in proportion to his interest in its funds, are measures so obviously just and reasonable that merely to mention them should be enough. They would give a deathblow to the influence of Socialists and Syndicalists who now lead the poor, ignorant 16 workers captive at their will. And so they would retard that dissolution of the social organism which is the avowed end of those sectaries." But, on the other hand, they 15 I wonder how many of our legislators who passed this Act know that it redressed, after a fashion, an injustice of a century's standing. Until 1814 the justices were empowered by statute to establish a minimum wage between employers and employed. In that year capitalists, intent upon grinding the poor by applying ruthlessly the principle of competition working through supply and demand, pronounced all-sufficient by the Orthodox Political Economy, procured the abolition of this provision of the law, in spite of the opposition of the workers, with whom, it may be noted, Pitt strongly sympathised. I use the word advisedly. A friend of mine was talking to a miner, an intelligent man enough, who observed, 'Well, I don't know much about this Milleny wage business, but we've got to obey our leaders.' 17 It is desirable to apprehend what Syndicalism and Socialism really are, where they differ, and in what they agree; otherwise we may fall into the would assuredly lose the Government the support of the Labour party in Parliament and the overwhelming votes of trade unionists in many constituencies. 18 That is held to be a conclusive reason why the King's Ministers should not initiate or support them. Parliamentary Government, as it exists among us, means the complete subordination of national to party interests. Ministers are always hampered by the fear of losing votes. And so the action of the Government is paralysed in all departments of the State. The gravest questions-the questions which most nearly concern the most vital interests of the community-are shelved. Le peuple ne m'intéresse que lorsqu'il vote,' a French demagogue is reported to have said, in a moment of cynical candour. And it is at the cost of these voting animals, or rather of the nation at large, that the party game is played: the poor, long-suffering, stupid, stolid nation, which looks helplessly on and pays the piper-whose price, as in this matter of the recent coal strike, is sometimes heavy. What, then, is the prospect before us? The trade unions are led, as they have been for the last fifteen years-led, yes, and skilfully organised-by men deficient indeed in economical knowledge, but of great force of character and untrammelled by scruples. The rank and file of the unions do not know what they want. But the leaders have a distinct apprehension of their own aims. The pamphlet of which the Times gave a full account on the 27th of February--The Miners' Next Stepis sufficiently enlightening. The strategy of the organisation Mr. error of Mr. Lloyd George or, if that be possible, into a worse error. Snowden, who knows what he is talking about, is reported, in the Times of the 1st of April, to have said, 'Syndicalism is opposed to organisation and to the State it is anarchy pure and simple, and the very opposite of Socialism.' No doubt this is so in theory; but, as Mr. Keir Hardie observed in a speech, reported in the same issue of the Times, When the Syndicalist said that every trade union should be merged into one union he was preaching the same theory as the Socialiste. They differed with the Syndicalists when they said that the mines should belong to the miners and the railways to the railwaymen, and so on. That was a debatable point on which he need not enter. The final goal of the Syndicalist was not essentially different from that of the Socialist. He did not want the colliers to own the pits, or the factory workers the mills; he wanted the community as a whole to own them, so that they could be worked for the good of the community. He would oppose, to the utmost, any attempt to cause antagonism between Syndicalism and Socialism, as they were both trying to put some backbone and determination into the working classes. Both were equally anxious for the overthrow of the existing state of society, and the creation of a newer and better state in which there should be freedom in the widest and broadest sense of the term.' Syndicalism, then, is one thing, and Socialism another but Socialism, through the trade unions which it commands, unites with Syndicalism in making war upon society-much to Mr. Keir Hardie's satisfaction. 18 Of course it must always be remembered that it would be in the power of the majority of the electorate-the five millions of manual labourers-to reverse the suggested legislation, and, in the absence of the introduction of a rational system of representation, it cannot be doubted that they would do so. which it proposes is set out with great frankness in four paragraphs, which are worth quoting : That the old policy of identity of interest between employer and employed be abolished and a policy of open hostility be installed. That for the purpose of giving greater strength to the lodges they be encouraged to join together to form joint committees and to hold joint meetings: these committees to have power to initiate and carry out the policy within their own area, unhampered by agent or executive council, so long as they act within their own financial resources. The lodges should, as far as possible, discard the old method of coming out on strike for any little minor grievance, and adopt the more scientific weapon of the irritation strike, by simply remaining at work, and so contrive by their general conduct to make the colliery unremunerative. That a continual agitation be carried on in favour of increasing the minimum wage and lessening the hours of labour until we have extracted the whole of the employers' profits. That our objective be to build up an organisation that will ultimately take over the mining industry and carry it on in the interests of the workers. The authorship of this pamphlet is, I believe, kept a secret, but there can be no doubt that the words which I have quoted are not the words of irresponsible men: they represent the views of a committee, a number of very influential men who, for all practical purposes, exercise a preponderating influence over the South Wales miners. And it is unquestionable that the leaders of many trade unions-avowed Socialists or Syndicalists-are animated by this conception of underhand war and ultimate pillage. It is equally unquestionable that the success of the organisers of the coal strike will hugely encourage others to follow their example. Nor can we even dismiss the Syndicalist notion of a general strike as a bad dream. It will probably come, though it may be long in coming. But what we have immediately to expect is a series of gigantic strikes, fraught with ruin to British industries, and fraught with intense suffering to manual labourers and to the poor generally; for the war thus waged is not merely against capital, but incidentally against other branches of labour. That is the prospect before us. What is to prevent its being realised? I remember my old friend Sir Alexander Arbuthnot, on his return from India, saying to me, 'The real governing power in this country is Funk.' We must make an end of that governing power if there is not to be an end of England. W. S. LILLY. WHY SOME OF THE CLERGY WILL THE protagonists of ecclesiastical strife have now descended into the political arena, and the 'modest stillness which becomes a man of peace' has given place to the 'blast of war blowing in our ears.' The drum ecclesiastic is being vigorously beaten to summon the Church's faithful liegemen once more to man the walls and to line the trenches in order to repel the renewed attack upon the Established Church in Wales. As one who in previous years has loyally responded to his leaders' call and has taken no little part in press and on platform on behalf of the Establishment, it may be of interest to some of his fellow-Churchmen to give his reasons for adopting a complete volte face on this question. Most of his friends are Churchmen, nearly all of whom view the Government's proposals with abhorrence and dismay. To defend and to advocate these appears to them incomprehensible, not to say treacherous. But there are many whose devotion to the Church cannot be questioned, who are convinced of the righteousness and the necessity of the present demand for Disestablishment made by a majority,' as Mr. Gladstone said (and how much truer his words are now), 'constitutionally, lawfully, peacefully and repeatedly returned to Parliament.' So long as the State desires to maintain an established religion there is nothing to prevent the Church acquiescing, provided that the union between the two is not injurious (as it is here thought to be) to the well-being of either. But the question is entirely one for citizens, as citizens only, to decide. There is nothing unscriptural in an Establishment, since the Old Testament brings before us a theocratic state in which the civil and religious powers are closely associated. Nor is it wrong for the State to recognise and honour the Church, although the forms that the recognition should take may and do vary from time to time, and should rather be offered by the State than in any way demanded by the Church. Where would be the amour propre of our territorial forces if, in defiance of the nation's will, they objected to their disbandment? For the Church to insist upon its Establishment is as invidious as for a man to demand salutation from one who is not disposed to make it, and savours of a lack of dignity and self-respect. If, therefore, Churchpeople contend for the maintenance of the union between Church and State, they should contend as citizens and not as Churchmen. But as religious liberty is now understood the State is bound to see that no religious organisation shall retain any privilege, so far as is practicable, that other religious bodies cannot share. The only reason that this country has now an established religion is an historic one. It was not only that identity of belief existed once between Church and nation, but that the Church at one time was co-extensive with the nation. In early times [wrote the late Professor Freeman] the Church was simply the nation looked at with reference to religion, just as the Army was the nation looked at for the purpose of warfare. . . . The ministers of the Church were national officers for one set of purposes, enjoying the rights. . . of national officers. ... Even when in the sixteenth century religious differences became serious, it was long held that the Church and the nation ought to be one, and that dissent in religion was a thing to be put down by law as much as sedition in politics. It was held to be the duty of the civil power in each State to prescribe its own religion to its subjects. . . And this is beyond doubt the original ... meaning of the Church being by law established. Church defenders are fond of quoting Lord Mansfield and Speaker Onslow, who spoke of dissent as established.' But nearly every society must have certain relations with the State in which it finds itself, and may have certain privileges conceded to it. For instance, Nonconformists have, by statute law, their ministers exempted from serving certain civil offices, and their chapels registered and certified for worship and exempted from rates. But similar privileges are equally enjoyed by Churchmen and others. And in so far as these will be retained by the Church, in a constitution adopted by the Church and sanctioned by the State, the Act which will disestablish the Church will establish it again. For 'disestablishment' is concerned not with what is common to many societies, but with what is exceptional to one. Since the Toleration Act of 1689 about fifty Acts of Parliament have been passed removing certain exclusive privileges of the Church which in course of time had been allowed to develop. Disestablishment will but complete the process, so far as is practicable, and at the same time will remove the special control which the State has now, in Crown, Parliament, and Judicature, over the Church. There is no need to cite any VOL. LXXI-No. 423 31 |